CompFox Logo
AboutWorkflowFeaturesPricingCase LawInsights

Updated Daily

Case Law Database

Access over workers' compensation decisions, including En Banc, Significant Panel Decisions, and writ-denied cases.

Case No. 2022 NY Slip Op 00221 [201 AD3d 1140]
Regular Panel Decision
Jan 13, 2022

Matter of New Team, LLC (Commissioner of Labor)

The Unemployment Insurance Appeal Board assessed New Team, LLC for additional unemployment insurance contributions, determining an employment relationship with its brand ambassadors based on an audit from July 2010 to September 2013. New Team appealed this decision. The Appellate Division, Third Department, affirmed the Board's ruling. The court found substantial evidence supported the Board's conclusion that New Team exercised sufficient supervision, direction, or control over the brand ambassadors to establish an employment relationship for unemployment insurance purposes. The decision highlighted factors such as New Team's recruitment, training, scheduling, event monitoring, and reporting requirements for brand ambassadors.

Unemployment InsuranceEmployment RelationshipIndependent ContractorBrand AmbassadorsUnemployment Insurance Appeal BoardAppellate Division Third DepartmentSubstantial EvidenceLabor Department AuditControl TestMarketing Services
References
10
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Members for a Democratic Union v. Local 1101, Communications Workers

Plaintiffs, Members for a Democratic Union (MDU) and individual members, sought mandatory injunctive relief to compel defendants, Local 1101, Communications Workers of America, AFL-CIO, and its officers, to publish an advertisement promoting a 'Defense Fund' in the union's newspaper, 'The Generator'. They argued this right under section 101(a)(2) of the Labor-Management Reporting and Disclosure Act. The defendants maintained a policy of not accepting paid advertisements, only publishing free notices for union member benefits, and argued this policy was reasonable and consistently applied. The court distinguished the case from previous rulings, noting that 'The Generator' had not 'opened the forum' to commercial speech or taken a stance on the Defense Fund issue. The court also noted that plaintiffs had other viable communication channels. Ultimately, the court found the defendants' policy to be reasonable and granted their motion for summary judgment, denying the plaintiffs' motion and dismissing the action.

Labor LawUnion DemocracyFreedom of SpeechLabor-Management Reporting and Disclosure ActSummary JudgmentUnion NewspaperAdvertising PolicyInjunctive ReliefFirst AmendmentInternal Union Affairs
References
18
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Reich v. Federation of Catholic Teachers, Inc.

The Secretary of Labor initiated an action to set aside the March 1993 election of the Federation of Catholic Teachers' officers and council members, alleging violations of Title IV of the Labor-Management Reporting and Disclosure Act (LMRDA). The Secretary contended the election was unfair due to the official ballot promoting incumbents as "The Action Team" while listing challengers simply as "The Opposition," and improper involvement of the incumbent president, Margaret Menard, in the election process. The court found the ballot unfair, constituting a violation of 29 U.S.C. § 481(c), ruling that the incumbent slate designation "The Action Team" without a corresponding name for the opposition slate was a violation, regardless of intent. Given the close election margins, the court determined that this violation may have affected the outcome and ordered a new election under the Secretary's supervision. While the court dismissed the claim of improper involvement by Menard, it noted the election's excessive informality and casual attitude towards legal requirements, instructing future elections to ensure committee independence and adherence to Department of Labor guidelines.

Labor-Management Reporting and Disclosure ActLMRDA Title IVUnion ElectionElection ViolationUnfair BallotIncumbent SlateOpposition SlateExhaustion of RemediesPrima Facie CaseBurden of Proof
References
5
Case No. 2021 NY Slip Op 04069 [195 AD3d 1342]
Regular Panel Decision
Jun 24, 2021

Matter of Quaranta v. Special Teams, Inc.

Vincent Quaranta, the appellant, had an established workers' compensation claim. His employer and carrier alleged he violated Workers' Compensation Law § 114-a by knowingly making material misrepresentations to obtain benefits, citing surveillance video footage. While a Workers' Compensation Law Judge initially found no violation, the Workers' Compensation Board disagreed, imposing both a mandatory penalty and a discretionary permanent disqualification from wage replacement benefits. The Appellate Division, Third Department, affirmed the Board's decision, finding substantial evidence that Quaranta feigned the extent of his disability during a July 2017 independent medical examination by misrepresenting his need for a cane, thereby upholding the violation of Workers' Compensation Law § 114-a. The Court also found no abuse of discretion in the Board's decision to disqualify Quaranta from future wage replacement benefits due to the egregious nature of his conduct.

Workers' Compensation Law § 114-a violationMaterial misrepresentationFraudulent claimsDisqualification from benefitsWage replacement benefitsSurveillance video evidenceIndependent medical examination (IME)Antalgic gaitUse of assistive devicesAppellate review
References
9
Case No. 2023 NY Slip Op 01051
Regular Panel Decision
Feb 23, 2023

Lindsay v. CG Maiden Member, LLC

The Appellate Division, First Department, affirmed an order granting plaintiff Nathaniel Lindsay partial summary judgment on his common-law negligence and Labor Law §§ 200 and 240 (1) claims against Five Star Carting, L.L.C. Lindsay testified he fell from an unsecured and wet A-frame ladder while trying to close a leaking valve, establishing an elevation-related risk under Labor Law § 240 (1). The court found defendant failed to provide proper protection and that the defendant's workers created the dangerous condition leading to the accident for the negligence and Labor Law § 200 claims. Despite defendant's arguments about inconsistent statements regarding the injury, this evidence did not controvert the plaintiff's testimony about the fall. The decision confirmed plaintiff's entitlement to partial summary judgment.

Elevation-related riskLadder AccidentSummary JudgmentCommon-law NegligenceLabor Law § 200Labor Law § 240 (1)Construction Site InjuryWorkplace SafetyFall AccidentAppellate Decision
References
7
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Lewittes & Sons v. United Furniture Workers of America

Plaintiffs, members of a copartnership, initiated an action against defendant-unions seeking damages for the alleged breach of a collective bargaining agreement's "no strike" clause. The defendants moved for a stay of the trial pending arbitration, citing the United States Arbitration Act. Plaintiffs opposed, arguing that the arbitration clause did not cover damage claims and that Section 1 of the Arbitration Act, which excludes certain employment contracts, should apply to the entire Act, thereby precluding a stay. The court found that the broad language of the arbitration clause encompassed claims for damages arising from a breach of the no-strike pledge. Furthermore, the court clarified that while the exception in Section 1 of the Arbitration Act applies to the entire Act, a collective bargaining agreement is not considered a "contract of employment" in the context of this exception. Consequently, the motion for a stay was granted, promoting arbitration as a means for peaceful labor dispute resolution.

Labor-Management Relations ActUnited States Arbitration ActCollective Bargaining AgreementArbitration ClauseNo-Strike ClauseStay of ProceedingsContract of EmploymentInterstate CommerceJudicial InterpretationFederal Court
References
15
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Reliance Insurance v. Certain Member Companies

Plaintiffs Reliance Insurance Company and New York Marine & General Insurance Company commenced this action seeking a declaratory judgment to void a reinsurance binder ab initio. Defendants, Certain Member Companies of the Institute of London Underwriters, issued this binder covering plywood cargo. A cargo fire on the vessel SAMICK NORDIC destroyed the plywood, leading to a dispute over a $2,043,740.24 reinsurance coverage. Plaintiffs argued they were misled by brokers into believing the reassured was retaining a portion of the risk, a customary practice, whereas the London Underwriters had ceded 100% of the FPA risk. The court found that plaintiffs reasonably believed in retention and were indeed misled by the brokers' actions and omissions, constituting a violation of the duty of uberrimae fidei, or utmost good faith. Consequently, the court entered judgment in favor of the plaintiffs, declaring the reinsurance binder void ab initio and dismissing the defendants' counterclaim.

Reinsurance disputeMarine insuranceDeclaratory judgmentUberrimae fideiBroker misleadingDuty to discloseFPA riskCargo insuranceContract void ab initioGood faith in insurance
References
10
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Claim of Laird v. All Pro Air Delivery, Inc.

A workers' compensation claim was filed by a decedent's widow after her husband's work-related death in 1998. A dispute arose regarding whether the employer's group self-insurance carrier, Team Transportation Workers’ Compensation Trust, had properly terminated the employer's coverage prior to the accident. A Workers’ Compensation Law Judge and subsequently the Workers’ Compensation Board consistently found that the carrier failed to provide sufficient proof of service of the termination notice to the employer, as required by Workers’ Compensation Law § 50 (3-a) (3). The Board's amended decision on February 23, 2006, reiterated this finding, noting a lack of evidence linking the certified mail receipt to the return receipt. The appellate court affirmed the Board's findings, holding that the carrier did not strictly comply with the statutory mandates for insurance termination, citing insufficient documentation and testimony regarding proper service of the termination notice to the employer.

Workers' Compensation LawInsurance Policy TerminationGroup Self-Insurance PlanNotice RequirementsCertified Mail ProofAppellate ReviewStatutory InterpretationBurden of ProofAdministrative DecisionSufficiency of Evidence
References
5
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Guzman v. Bevona

Carlos Guzman, a member and former shop steward of Local 32B-32J, sued the Union's Joint Executive Board for violating his rights under the LMRDA and LMRA, and for intentional infliction of emotional distress under state law. Guzman alleged he was retaliated against for protesting union dues and salaries, specifically by being excluded from a meeting, subjected to surveillance by union-hired private investigators, and having his work hours reduced. The defendants moved to dismiss the claims. The court denied the motion to dismiss, finding that Guzman's claims had sufficient grounds to proceed, including potential damages for breach of union constitution and for extreme and outrageous conduct causing emotional distress.

Labor Management Reporting and Disclosure ActLabor Management Relations ActFreedom of Speech and AssemblyUnion Dues ProtestShop Steward ExclusionSurveillanceIntentional Infliction of Emotional DistressMotion to DismissUnion Constitution BreachRetaliation
References
19
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Peacock v. Wurf

Plaintiffs, members of Local 420 of AFSCME, initiated an action against Jerry Wurf, President of AFSCME, and later James Butler, President of Local 420, seeking to enjoin internal union disciplinary hearings. The District Court granted a temporary restraining order. The initial action became moot when Butler withdrew his charges against the plaintiffs, leading to dismissal by consent. This memorandum opinion addresses the plaintiffs' subsequent application for attorneys' fees. The Court granted the application, finding that the plaintiffs provided a substantial benefit to the union membership by defending their free speech rights under the Labor Management Reporting and Disclosure Act (LMRDA), aligning with the 'common benefit' doctrine established in Hall v. Cole.

Union DemocracyLMRDAFree Speech RightsAttorneys' FeesCommon Benefit DoctrineInternal Union DisputeRetaliationInjunctive ReliefDismissalSuccessful Litigants
References
10
Showing 1-10 of 690 results

Ready to streamline your practice?

Apply these legal strategies instantly. CompFox helps you find decisions, analyze reports, and draft pleadings in minutes.

CompFox Logo

The AI standard for workers' compensation professionals. Faster research, deeper analysis, better outcomes.

Product

  • Platform
  • Workflow
  • Features
  • Pricing

Solutions

  • Defense Firms
  • Applicants' Attorneys
  • Insurance carriers
  • Medical Providers

Company

  • About
  • Insights
  • Case Law

Legal

  • Privacy
  • Terms
  • Trust
  • Cookies
  • Subscription

© 2026 CompFox Inc. All rights reserved.

Systems Operational